On 2022/9/20 12:45, Ziyang Zhang wrote:
> On 2022/9/20 11:04, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 09:49:33AM +0800, Ziyang Zhang wrote:
>>> On 2022/9/19 20:33, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static void ublk_quiesce_queue(struct ublk_device *ub,
>>>>>>> + struct ublk_queue *ubq)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < ubq->q_depth; i++) {
>>>>>>> + struct ublk_io *io = &ubq->ios[i];
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (!(io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_ACTIVE)) {
>>>>>>> + struct request *rq = blk_mq_tag_to_rq(
>>>>>>> + ub->tag_set.tags[ubq->q_id], i);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!rq);
>>>>>>> + pr_devel("%s: %s rq: qid %d tag %d io_flags %x\n", __func__,
>>>>>>> + ublk_queue_can_use_recovery_reissue(ubq) ?
>>>>>>> + "requeue" : "abort",
>>>>>>> + ubq->q_id, i, io->flags);
>>>>>>> + if (ublk_queue_can_use_recovery_reissue(ubq))
>>>>>>> + blk_mq_requeue_request(rq, false);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This way is too violent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There may be just one queue dying, but you requeue all requests
>>>>>> from any queue. I'd suggest to take the approach in ublk_daemon_monitor_work(),
>>>>>> such as, just requeuing requests in dying queue.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to start a new process after a crash for USER_RECOVERY, all old ubq_daemons
>>>>> must exit and rqs of all queues have to be requeued/aborted. We cannot let live
>>>>> ubq_daemons run any more because they do not belong to the new process.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the old process really can exist, and recently even I got such
>>>> requirement for switching queue from one thread to another.
>>>
>>> For now, only one process can open /dev/ublkcX, so a new process is necessary now.
>>>
>>> If you think "per ubq_daemon" recovery is reasonable, I can do that in the future
>>> if multiple processes is supported. But I really suggest that we can keep current
>>> design as the first step which assumes all ubq_daemons are exited and a new process
>>> is started, and that really meets our requirement.
>>>
>>> BTW, START_USER_RECOVERY has to be reconsidered because we may need to pass a ubq_id
>>> with it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What we should do is to get all inflight requests done, and cancel all io
>>>> commands, no matter if the ubq pthread is dead or live.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I really wonder why there could be just one queue dying? All queues must be dying
>>>>> shortly after any ubq_daemon is dying since they are all pthreads in the same process.
>>>>
>>>> You can't assume it is always so. Maybe one pthread is dead first, and
>>>> others are dying later, maybe just one is dead.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know there may be only one pthread is dead while others keep running, but now
>>> ublk_drv only support one process opening the same /dev/ublkcX, so other pthreads
>>> must dead(no matter they are aborted by signal or themselves) later.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If one queue's pthread is live, you may get trouble by simply requeuing
>>>> the request, that is why I suggest to re-use the logic of
>>>> ublk_daemon_monitor_work/ublk_abort_queue().
>>>
>>> Actually, if any ubq_daemon is live, no rqs are requeued, please see the check in
>>> ublk_quiesce_dev(). It always makes sure that ALL ubq_daemons are dying, then it
>>> starts quiesce jobs.
>>
>> OK, looks I miss this point, but you should have quiesced queue at the
>> beginning of ublk_quiesce_dev(), then the transition period can be kept
>> as short as possible. Otherwise, if one queue pthread isn't dying, the
>> device can be kept in this part-working state forever.
>>
>
> Ming, this is what you said in PATCH V2:
> "
> The simplest handling might be to exit all ublk queues first, and re-create one
> new process to recover all since the request queue is required to be
> quiesced first, and all ublk queue is actually quiesced too. So from user
> viewpoint, there is nothing visible comparing with just recovering
> single ubq daemon/pthread.
> "
>
> So I assume that quiesce_work starts only after all ubq_damons are dying.
> Note that current ublk does not support mutpile process opening the same chardev.
>
> Really we should agree on this. My suggestion is that we only consider "all ubq_daemons
> are dying".
>
> You mention that someone want to enable "switch ubq_daemon pthread to another one" and
> I think it is another feature but not recovery feature.
>
> Regards,
> Zhang.
This should be considered very carefully, Ming.
